I read, with interest, the comments by the candidates for District 211 school board. Like Roman Golash, I do not have the kind of pension 42 percent of the district retirees have. I think candidate Scharringhausen is also against the continued salary and, therefore, pension increases. Good for him.
Ms. Klimkowicz shows why she needs to be replaced. There is no need to keep up with neighboring school boards and excessive salaries. She apparently likes catch phrases such "interest-based bargaining" but fails to mention that the taxpayer is one of the groups who have an interest in these negotiations. She and the current members of the board chose to raise the levy so they wouldn't lose it. It would be nice if we could all raise the levy of our own pensions as freely as our current board sticks it to the taxpayer.
Contact information ( * required )
President LeFevre is even worse in his statements. He wants only the best and is willing to pay for those teachers. District 211 has not put in, to my knowledge, a credible merit pay system. Therefore, all teachers get the same pay increase whether they are excellent in the classroom or just skate by. Their pensions all go up by the same percentage as the salary increases.
Since District 211 is not the highest ranking school district in the state based on the statewide test results, how does President LeFevre justify the salaries?
Yung does not sound any more concerned about the situation. What kind of an explanation is "It is what it is."?
Unfortunately, as I count, that is only two that show real concern out of the five. Unfortunately, there are three open positions. Three seats, two people who care about the taxpayer. That does not make me a happy taxpayer.
Lastly, somehow this group feels as if the state were doing their job it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. Yes, it would, it would be a burden on every taxpayer in the state, not just those paying property tax within District 211.